Yeah Satellite was the worst thing about managing RHEL but it’s still leagues better than similar products for Windows. We basically just used Sat for licensing and as a local repo so it wasn’t too bad for that. We started using Ansible more just as I left my sysadmin career. Lots of rhel with rac and jboss.
Yeah I just find for newer users the amount of Ubuntu support has always been a huge plus if you’re just getting in to messing with Linux. It’s a lot better now but it used to be things like “how to do x on Ubuntu,” there would always be some super easy to follow tutorial. My personal preference is just a Debian install but the more catered experiences like Mint and Ubuntu do a great job at presenting Debian to daily users without any hassle.
It was PHLAK back in the day. I just like Kali because it has so many tools ready to go out of the box. Run Debian as main OS though and it’s pretty simple to add their repos and install them.
Definitely agree and I think sometimes people conflate intersectionality with the way it’s been commodified and adopted by capital and it causes debates because it’s not precise about what the problem is. A lot of left scholars have been a lot more pointed about the “problem with diversity” not being about “diversity” or inclusion etc. It’s just important to recognize why it doesn’t threaten capitalist institutions, which doesn’t mean it’s bad, it means it’s ineffective for that purpose, it’s like being nice to people at work. Education on intersectionality that a lot of people are exposed to is often mediated/coerced by employers through business relationships with HR/diversity industry consultants. They’re presenting very specific notions of the topic that they’re able to sell to employers, and employers are being sold on it as basically a branding/marketing thing to “make the company look good,” but leadership might even be personally invested in it and genuinely want people to feel included at their company, it’s not a radical notion at all. The problem is the inherent conflict between employers and employees and how it dictates what notions of intersectionality or EDI are presented in that context.
I definitely don’t equate intersectionality with culture war, but I think it’s important to understand why capitalism has adopted intersectionality in the specific way it has. A lot of the debates about it on the left seem to be rooted in conflating intersectionality with how it’s commodified. Like you can think Robin D’Angelo is ridiculous without throwing intersectionality out the window.
All the big names I’ve seen labeled class reductionists are basically involved with diversity and intersectionality at some level, and openly express their support of those sort of initiatives, or have actually benefitted from them and admit it. Adolph Reed had a great example of when they were negotiating their collective agreement the EDI commitments were one of the first thing signed off and agreed to, but it took them a year of arbitration to get more sick days or something like that. It’s the same with my union as well. It just shows how capital is not against EDI or intersectionality, they’re against exploiting people less.
Reconstruction was pretty royally bungled by the Andrew Johnson presidency as well, and the Populists who fought with racial solidarity after for what was in essence a class mission were dealt with by the capitalist class.
They want people to punch down, blame the person scraping by on welfare or the person who’s identity is maligned for what is actually caused by massive wealth disparity. MLK Jr didn’t advocate fighting a vague notion of racism, he convinced black and white unions they were stronger together and that economic equality as a class program was the mechanism to combat the issue, with specific laws and legislation and job action as the tools available. In a certain context, the biggest advocacy group for the rights of gender non-conforming individuals in the world right now is the AFL-CIO.
Issues that don’t alter economic arrangements yet are the focus of mainstream politics, or issues amplified and masqueraded as politics for this specific purpose. The idea that people you resent being treated worse than you is a political achievement, is the foundational mechanism of culture war. As the basic economic arrangement is no longer on the table or negotiable politically, politics increasingly becomes focused on individual resentments. The right is fueled by culture war right now more than any other political faction.
From the left perspective in the US it’s basically the Democrats who are the “enlightened centrist” position, if not center-right, because they think capitalism is redeemable if it has the right branding etc, and success in the system is at least in theory available to everyone. The right faction are more honest in how they embrace and take joy in how this system runs on exploitation, and are obviously more dangerous in the current climate. The Democrats have to be dishonest because they have to take an inherently exploitative economic arrangement and give it a positive spin.
Oh they do be selling it that’s for sure. I haven’t checked in to Spider Man since Enter the Spiderverse, which I thought was really cool. Marvel I didn’t even like the style of the first movies, but I felt obligated to see them since I was technically part of what is now “nerd culture,” and I think a lot of us felt the same obligation to see them for nerd cred. Now they’ve just commodified it to shit and milking every drop they can out of it.
Guardians had the things I hate about MCU but was entertaining enough to be enjoyable, because they leaned in to how wacky it was I think. Rest of MCU was just done to a crisp even then.